|
Post by balok on Apr 7, 2007 18:30:49 GMT -5
The art was adequate, to me, but little more than that. Gyrich's characterization seems to veer wildly between loathsome (this issue) and tolerable (some issues of Avengers V1 towards the end of the run.)
The characters aren't interesting, but they're trying to show training, and it wouldn't make much sense to show established heroes in boot camp. Spider-Man, despite lacking formal training, would have little difficulty taking on all of those recruits at once. Gauntlet wouldn't be much more of a challenge. So to get that "newbie" sense they're going to need new characters.
I'd like to see them tell the story of what happens when one of these recruits grows a conscience and takes what happened during that training session to a newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 7:19:41 GMT -5
Another thing I didn't understand is this.
They are trying to establish a 'boot camp' attitude. When I went into basic, we didn't start out with combat drills the very first day. In all branches of the military the first few days are comprised of classification, medical junk and breaking down individual patterns in order to set the foundation for team mentality.
Gyrich is one hundred percent beauracrat. Which means he does things like they've always been done. Boot camp would not have changed, which means these kids would not be in this situation at his point in training.
I guess it's just another believability issue for me.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 8:18:31 GMT -5
Having finally got it I can now review it! So without further ado...
Doom's Deconstruction: We're introduced to our key players. The Gauntlet's in Iraq and Gyrich explains to him that the US has already won the Super Power Arms race- now they just need to form a super hero army. Cloud 9 is recruited by War Machine. Armoury is recruiuted by the mighty Avengers. MVP is recruited by Justice. They all go to camp and we meet three other players- Trauma, Komodo and Hardball. After some incidents to flish out the characters, a training incident goes wrong claims MVP's life but Gyrich insists it never happened.
The View of Doom: The first thing I want to comment on is the accident at the end. I liked it- it genuinely felt plausible. It wasn't your generic "stupid kids kill other kid" OR your generic "idiotic government screw up cause incident." The Initative were too careless and that's an element, but there's also elements of Armoury being dumb and the others being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It ups the stakes and provides drama, and I like how it's not really any individual's fault alone. RIP MVP!
My favourite scene in the issue was actually the first one. Firstly, I like the Gauntlet. Is he your generic "hardass drill instructor"? Oh HELL YEAH. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it and this is a drill instructor with a GIANT FREAKING HAND! The character is cool, if cliché, but he's well handled. I now demand he be in a movie played by Samuel L Jackson! To return to the point, I liked the scene as a whole, it felt very nautral and made sense to me. Also Gyrich's little speech opens the doors on any number of very interesting plots and story alleyways!
The characters- it's hard to say. I like Cloud 9 as an "everyman" type person, a complete newbie- her comments on other super-women were both accurate and funny. MVP was good before he bit the dust. Too early to say for many- like Hardball or Komodo. Armoury I feel kinda sorry for but she did deserve what she got. Trauma fascinates me and could prove very interesting!
Hank, War Machine and Justice we saw barely any of- I want that rectified, I really do want to see more of these guys in subsequent issues. That's my one problem- I want thye staff of Camp Hammond expanded upon more. The boot camp scenes felt very good as well, and in general I loved the issue. Things I disapproved of? It did feel a little rushed in parts with much crammed on every page, and it's evident that it was written to be a mini-series - so many characters, so little space. I'm willing to be lenient on the first arc because of the mini-series element but I hope Dan Slott cools it down from issue 7 onwards and gives the reader more time to think.
Verily, Doom doth decree that this issue shalt be given.... nine gold Dooms out of Ten
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 8, 2007 21:00:57 GMT -5
I saw some preview art for #2 somewhere - CBR, perhaps - and there's a panel of Hank holding a bottle of anxiety meds. I guess after performing medical experiments on unwilling subjects (Armory) and being complicit in theft, he needs something to take the edge off. Hank: I recommend you stay away from the drugs and find your moral center again. Either that or fall back on the time-honored solution of blasting out some of Jan's chicklets. [1]
[1] The preceeding tongue-in-cheek post should not be taken as an endorsement of spousal abuse, even in a comic book, but rather as an expression of frustration at the "new direction" of these characters. Joe Quesada cannot be fired fast enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 9, 2007 4:33:24 GMT -5
It's hard for me to understand how Marvel expects us to care anymore when so many of their books are dominated by such unlikable characters, who are so hard to symphatize with... but perhaps Marvel knows what is doing & such objections are simply not a factor among the younger generation of fans...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 9, 2007 5:32:14 GMT -5
Or maybe we do like them? Balok, if you honestly believe they should have let Armoury go into the wild with a GIANT KILLING GUN on her arm, your naivety has transcended all past limits.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 9, 2007 10:30:11 GMT -5
How exactly does a young woman wind up with a giant killing gun on her arm anyhow?
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 9, 2007 12:54:17 GMT -5
How exactly does a young woman wind up with a giant killing gun on her arm anyhow? Radioactive gun bite
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 9, 2007 13:34:28 GMT -5
How exactly does a young woman wind up with a giant killing gun on her arm anyhow? Radioactive gun bite tee hee hee. yeah, you gotta watch out for those
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 9, 2007 18:25:16 GMT -5
Or maybe we do like them? No, that can't be it. Balok, if you honestly believe they should have let Armoury go into the wild with a GIANT KILLING GUN on her arm, your naivety has transcended all past limits. What's wrong with telling her she washed out, and reminding her that she can't operate as a hero without that license. The weapon is hers and not theirs, even if all she chooses to do with it is lock it in a safe somewhere. If they catch her operating without the license, then she's liable for that violation - but what they have done is steal from her. All of this, of course, assumes the weapon originally belonged to her. If it didn't, that changes the picture. Suppose an alien gave her that device in exchange for some help she'd rendered it? That has been used as an origin in the past. The alien returns, discovers that his gift has been misappropriated and attempts are being made to reverse engineer it. He objects, and takes action, leaving various members of the Initiative dead or unconscious about the laboratory. Or they kill him, and perhaps cause an interplanetary incident. Then his people appear and they say, "Well. These people were doing alright for awhile, but while we turned out backs they started to slouch towards totalitarianism. And then they killed Vrchip when he asked for the return of our property. Azkclik, hand me the nova gun..." Unlike you and the SHRA, I believe in punishing people when they actually break the law, rather than assuming they're going to break the law, and "pre-punishing" them. I'm going to guess you're a big fan of gun control, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 9, 2007 18:35:40 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I am a HUGE fan of gun control. You know I can't give you facts for super human registration in-uni but I do know this little chestnut: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you get a population roughly the size of the United States. The USA had 32,000 gun related deaths in 2002, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidial by nature? Or do you think it's because those countries have gun control laws?
I'm sorry, I just think it is the height of idiocy to let this kid wander around with a giant killer weapon on her hand. I'm for registration, I don'/t think ANYONE should have a weapon like that but to let a kid who cant even legally register it yet have one is to me the real crime.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 9, 2007 19:44:10 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I am a HUGE fan of gun control. You know I can't give you facts for super human registration in-uni but I do know this little chestnut: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you get a population roughly the size of the United States. The USA had 32,000 gun related deaths in 2002, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidial by nature? Or do you think it's because those countries have gun control laws? There are flaws with this argument, chief among them that one must consider ALL incidents of crime, not just gun related crime, when making such a comparison. But this board isn't the place to debunk the fallacy of gun control. I'm sorry, I just think it is the height of idiocy to let this kid wander around with a giant killer weapon on her hand. I'm for registration, I don'/t think ANYONE should have a weapon like that but to let a kid who cant even legally register it yet have one is to me the real crime. I didn't argue that she should be permitted to wander around with it, in fact, I specifically said they could tell he she can't. I argued that they're not entitled to steal it from her, which is a different thing entirely. This is the logical fallacy known as the strawman - altering an argument into something you can successfully oppose, rather than opposing the real argument.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 10, 2007 4:41:21 GMT -5
And where your theory there falls off Balok is that I'm quite ready to argue either- and you of all people should know by now that I don't only argue arguments I can win. In this case though, I can. I think you can tell where this is going since I support gun control- it is wildly unsafe to leave a weapon of that power in the house of a kid. You can tell her not to use it but I heavily doubt that would be respected. The risk is nowhere near worth it, and guess what- while I'm pretty sure the FOunders didn't want everyone to have a gun, I'm absolutely certain they didn't think every thirteen year old kid should get a giant arm cannon back at the house and, as a failsafe, be told very sternly not to use it!
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 10, 2007 12:59:55 GMT -5
What's wrong with telling her she washed out, and reminding her that she can't operate as a hero without that license. The weapon is hers and not theirs, even if all she chooses to do with it is lock it in a safe somewhere. If they catch her operating without the license, then she's liable for that violation - but what they have done is steal from her. All of this, of course, assumes the weapon originally belonged to her. If it didn't, that changes the picture. By the same logic anyone who fails to pass a gun registry should be able to keep their gun. Better yet, KIDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS how much more of a cut and dry real world legal precedence do you need. If I lived in a world with superpowers and it was regulated, I wouldn't want washouts keeping their powers that just spells trouble. And more to the point, its not stealing if you signed a contract(Which I imagine the governemnt had every superhero through the door do)
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 10, 2007 15:41:25 GMT -5
By the same logic anyone who fails to pass a gun registry should be able to keep their gun. If you fail the background test, you can't get a gun in the first place. There's no test for people who inherit guns or receive them as gifts. They belong to that person and not the government. If they can't pass a background check, they can't use or carry they weapon, but they could sell it, keep it, or suchlike. In this particular case, suppose she elected to sell the weapon to someone in exchange for a piece of the profit they earn from whatever they learn from it? She must have that right - to let the government steal that from her is oppression. Better yet, KIDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS how much more of a cut and dry real world legal precedence do you need. That actually depends on how old the child is and what type of gun it is. By this argument, all men should be castrated at birth to avoid the possibility that they will grow up and become rapists, since you seem to feel that possession of a thing is a guarantee that it will be misused. If I lived in a world with superpowers and it was regulated, I wouldn't want washouts keeping their powers that just spells trouble. So, what would you do if the powers were inherent? Take the person out behind the chemical shed and put a bullet in their head? No doubt Gyrich would think that's the right answer, but it's not an answer that respects individual rights or individual life. If it's not your answer, either, then what is? More generally, why do you assume that people will misuse a power? That sounds like a person who's afraid all the time, of a lot of things. And more to the point, its not stealing if you signed a contract(Which I imagine the governemnt had every superhero through the door do) Such a contract is illegal under American law. Since registration is mandatory, you cannot require someone obeying that law to sign anything; it's called a coercive contract. Perhaps the best known example from cinema would be when the Godfather (Vito Corleone) had Luca Brasi hold a gun to someone's head and tell him that either his signature would be on a contract, or his brains would be. Do you think the government should be run the way the Mob is? Here's an example: suppose instead of minor surgery, the girl had bionic limbs containing weapons. These limbs replace her own limbs. They are (like the weapon Yellowjacket's people stole) highly complex and poorly understood. To remove the weapons, one can only remove the limbs. Would you reduce the girl to the status of a wheelchair bound quadriplegic out of fear of what she might someday do? That would be a profound disrespect for individual rights, but it would be consistent with the SHRA, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 10, 2007 16:25:46 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I am a HUGE fan of gun control. You know I can't give you facts for super human registration in-uni but I do know this little chestnut: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you get a population roughly the size of the United States. The USA had 32,000 gun related deaths in 2002, they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidial by nature? Or do you think it's because those countries have gun control laws? I'm sorry, I just think it is the height of idiocy to let this kid wander around with a giant killer weapon on her hand. I'm for registration, I don'/t think ANYONE should have a weapon like that but to let a kid who cant even legally register it yet have one is to me the real crime. Here's another fact though Doom. There is a town in Texas where people are required, by law, to own at least one gun per household. They have the lowest crime rate per capita of any town in the nation. The problems with our guns is that most of the bad guys have them and aren't afraid to use them because in many cases our legal system holds no fear for them. Although I still cant approve of a girl walking around with a canon on her arm. But if you were a mugger, you'd probably look elsewhere for a victim.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 10, 2007 17:50:49 GMT -5
I'm very interested to know why Doom appears to have had an identity crisis and referred to me by his own name in the last post but okay...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 10, 2007 17:54:08 GMT -5
As Doom, sometimes the most intelligent person to talk to is myself
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 10, 2007 17:55:06 GMT -5
...Talk to yourself? Do you ever argue or is it all "friendly conversations"
Cos if it's the latter I pity the walls of Castle Doom!
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 10, 2007 18:04:15 GMT -5
Just a couple points for ya Balok.
1. You can't get a gun without passing a background test, but you can get powers without said test. Therefore the rules will be a little different.
2. Suppose she did elect to sell her Gun in this case. That is considered ARMS DEALING (Literally hahahah) and as such, would not be allowed by Earth's Mightiest
3. She should be lucky she only had to give up her gun. Manslaughter can carry so much worse sentencing. Considering what happened, Armory should be happy that all she lost was her powers and not her freedom.
4. As for age and type of gun, I think Armory is under 18, and I''m pretty sure guns the size of your freaking arm qualify as not good for kids.
5. Possession doesn't mean you will do something bad, it means you CAN do something bad. Regulating weapons isn't something new, nore is it unreasonable. Castrating men because they could rape people is both a new and unreasonable idea.
6. As for washouts loosing their powers, it isn't unreasonable as long as the methods are reasonable. Removing a giant-weapon arm is reasonable. Shooting mutants out back, not reasonable. If Armory had all robo-arms with no flesh underneath, I would suggest that the weapon systems in hte arms be taken offline. Since the case was the arm could just be removed, that was a fine solution. In the mutant or mutate case, there have been numerous examples of mutant power dampeners. I would require washout mutants to use similar tech. Not a big issue considering there are no more new mutants right? as for mutates, thats kinda touch and go because there is a lot of variation in mutate power sources/reason for powers.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 10, 2007 20:48:12 GMT -5
The thing is, Armory didn't lose control of HER power. That guy she was with did. He uses the powers of others. This is his fault.
When in control of her power Armory's weapons only allow enough power to stop her opponent, thus not being a deadly weapon.
The other guy took control of her power, overriding that safety.
He is the one that should be washing out, not her.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 10, 2007 21:15:07 GMT -5
The thing is, Armory didn't lose control of HER power. That guy she was with did. He uses the powers of others. This is his fault. When in control of her power Armory's weapons only allow enough power to stop her opponent, thus not being a deadly weapon. The other guy took control of her power, overriding that safety. He is the one that should be washing out, not her. My Understanding of Tramua's power is that he transforms into your worst fear. Armory's powers weren't being overriden by his powers so much as her own fear of spiders. Obviously he was somewhat at fault too, but Firing random, highly deadly shots in every direction is kinda irresponsible, even if you are afraid of spiders.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 11, 2007 5:43:52 GMT -5
It was indeed her- she can change the power of her gun to compensate with different threats so she totally lost her mind, didn't seem to realise that was actually Trauma and started firing shots powerful enough to kill a giant psychotic spider.
This was partly his fault, yes, but also partly heroes and partly Gyrich's.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 11, 2007 12:35:28 GMT -5
Any decent defense attorney could blow a manslaughter case right out of the water, since the law required her to undergo Initiative training, and once they started in on exactly how that training was done... well, as Doc says, there's blame enough to go around. Gyrich put her in that situation and no one (at least, on panel) explained what would happen. Plus, it wasn't that Trauma turned into something nasty, it was that he turned into something nasty that exploits a specific fear of Armory's.
I think she should go to the newspapers and explain what happened, but then, I'd like to see the lid blown off the Initiative's so far corrupt and incompetent approach to training, admixed with a little cover-up for good measure. Sooner or later, at the rate they're going, THEY will cause another Stamford. (Or, they would if Marvel chose to write them realistically). And THEN what will people ask the government to do for protection?
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 11, 2007 15:26:03 GMT -5
so what we see again, is a failure to pursue due process.
There should be a hearing before doing away with someones powers. The Avengers have hearings when an Avenger kills someone.
In the Military if there is an incident, there is a Court Martial.
This attitude of just carve their powers up and send them out doesn't jive with reality. And Marvel is trying to mirror reality.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 11, 2007 20:31:24 GMT -5
Any decent defense attorney could blow a manslaughter case right out of the water, since the law required her to undergo Initiative training, and once they started in on exactly how that training was done... well, as Doc says, there's blame enough to go around. Gyrich put her in that situation and no one (at least, on panel) explained what would happen. Plus, it wasn't that Trauma turned into something nasty, it was that he turned into something nasty that exploits a specific fear of Armory's. I think she should go to the newspapers and explain what happened, but then, I'd like to see the lid blown off the Initiative's so far corrupt and incompetent approach to training, admixed with a little cover-up for good measure. Sooner or later, at the rate they're going, THEY will cause another Stamford. (Or, they would if Marvel chose to write them realistically). And THEN what will people ask the government to do for protection? I think Marvel is writing this pretty realistically. Unrealistic would involve the Innitiative working without a hitch, and with no corruption and such. It kinda comes back to the argument of realism vs idealism. The innitiative is realistic because it works the way the government does, with good intentions, and occasionally (or more than occasionally) questionable methods. So far all the real bumbling and poor training has been on site, I don't see anything to make me think the Innitiative is sending people who can't use their powers properly into the field. As for what Nutcase said I do agree that even the military has a court Marshal, and that the coverup was one of the more exsessive coverups in the SHRA, but if the truth came out, it would be pretty damaging so I guess they made their choice. Not like Gyrich's a good guy or anything anyway, not too unbelivable.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 12, 2007 15:29:21 GMT -5
Alche has it right about Gyrich. So it would appear that they are setting the initiative to fail, and fail massively.
To start with a death, add a coverup and put it all right in Stamford. I thikit'll get real ugly.
It also looks like they're setting it up to revolve around the Cloud 9 character because the writers are putting in an effort to make her someone the readers like and can identify with.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 12, 2007 15:50:58 GMT -5
I'll grant that in an organization the size of the Initiative there will be a few bad apples. But so far, we see that too many of them (Hank Pym, Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Henry Gyrich, Carol Danvers) occupy positions of significant responsibility. So the corruption isn't a patch here and a patch there, it's endemic. I wonder if Millar's book that will sell 500K is the book that puts all this back the way it should be?
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 12, 2007 18:50:02 GMT -5
OK Balok, I gotta disagree with your grouping.
I know you want to make a point, but do you really believe Ms. Marvel is corrupt?
In the actual Civil War there were people on both sides with integrity, just like there were people on both sides who were evil.
Was Robert E. Lee corrupt? He didn't own slaves. He believed slavery was wrong. He believed that States rights were important so he fought with his state.
Or in this case, since the side you and I were against (yes, I am anti-reg)won, we were the losers. So let's use the North as an example.
Was Abraham Lincoln corrupt, was Grant? In most accounts all of these guys were honorable men.
Rambling on to lead to this point. Carol isn't corrupt. We disagree with the side she chose, but she obeyed the laws as written. She did not want to hurt her friends. But if they broke the law, she upheld it. This argument applies to many others as well.
I don't look at Reed and say corrupt, in this case I say weak willed Same with Pym
Now Stark and Gyrich are on their own.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 13, 2007 15:19:51 GMT -5
Carol's in the group because she spearheaded the vile deception that drew the New Avengers to the helicarrier, thinking they'd find Cap alive. That's conscienceless.
Reed Richards is mostly the victim of mischaracterization, as the confident Reed written for decades sudden became a spineless coward complicit in the betrayal of friends and associates because a mathematical equation told him to do that.
Pym made this list because I disagree with what he did to Armory. I regard it as theft.
Stark is on there because of what he did to win the Civil War and foster registration.
Gyrich has a long history as a bad apple. He's a sociopath.
|
|